Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: HVAC on 6 Feb 2010 13:57 "Sanny" <softtanks22(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a1c75804-b3d2-4784-84f8-c91feea8fba5(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > has been seen by experiments. That is in a perfect vacuum. Light can be slowed to almost a stop. As for the rest of your post, remember the relativistic properties of anything aproaching C. That's why the closing speed of 2 photons in a vacuum is still C. > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > orthogonal. > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > Lets imagine a light wave with amplitude "x" and wavelength "w" > > Now we say light travels a distance of Wavelength "w" at speed of "C" > > But since sine wave is a curve the perimeter of movement is larger > than the wavelength. > > When we increase the frequency of light the parameter enlarges even > further as the amplitude has risen. > > So higher frequency light has to travel a longer distance. As the sine > curve is more enlongated away from center. > > So Light wave moves up and down at a speed faster than "C" > > Now we assume another case an Electron is fired at speed of "c" The > electron too travel like a wave. So electron will go up and down in > sine wave. > > So reality is speed of electron is more than "c" As the sine wave is > curved. > > I hope my analogy is understood by all. If not let me try to speak in > more detail. > > So an electron/ Light travelling at speed "c" is actually moving > faster than "c" as it goes up and down the sine curves. > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > So if an electron is moving at speed "c" It is actually moving faster > than "c" > > Bye > Sanny > > Chat with Computer: http://www.GetClub.com/ Version 2.0 >
From: BradGuth on 6 Feb 2010 14:47 On Feb 6, 9:08 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Sanny <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > has been seen by experiments. > > > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > > orthogonal. > > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > > longer if you go up and down in curves. > > When it is said that light is a wave, it doesn't mean that it travel > along a sinusoidal path. It means that the field strength varies > sinusoidally, meaning the electric and magnetic fields get stronger > and weaker over space. It has nothing to do with the path that light > follows (which is a straight line). And each and every atom of this universe has emitted how many of those photons? ~ BG
From: rotchm on 6 Feb 2010 14:57 > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > has been seen by experiments. Past experiments gave values near "c". The modern (operational) definitions of time, position and speed make the speed of light to be 299792458 which we now call "c". New experiments give the exact value of 299792458 *by construction*, else the experimental setup is invalid by the defined measurement procedure. > But a few minutes back I got an idea. > > 1. Light is a wave. It is a sine wave with Magnetic & Electric fields > orthogonal. > > Since a Sine wave is a curve. > > The shortest distance between two points is straight line. It takes > longer if you go up and down in curves. No, light is not modeled as something traveling along a sine path. Light is modeled as traveling along a straight line. *Along this line*, the Electric and magnetic field change. Outside this line, there is no light, no E nor B field. What you are describing is a common "visual" mistake made by many novices.
From: Benj on 6 Feb 2010 15:06 On Feb 6, 1:57 pm, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Sanny" <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a1c75804-b3d2-4784-84f8-c91feea8fba5(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > has been seen by experiments. > > That is in a perfect vacuum. > > Light can be slowed to almost a stop. > > As for the rest of your post, remember the relativistic > properties of anything aproaching C. That's why the > closing speed of 2 photons in a vacuum is still C. Oh great! Now the gang's all here! With HVAC showing up along with Sanny, "Mitch Raemsch" (winner of two Nobel prizes) and the rest we now have all the kooks in one spot ready to come to an understanding of... nothing! Sorry guys, light is NOT an electromagnetic wave. Attempting to use that model as some ultimate explanation of the assumptions of SR is only chasing your own tail. Fun, but no results. Sanny IS asking the right question however: If light were a wave in a medium, then HOW can we explain all the quantum effects observed in modern physics? In other words how can both assumptions somehow be compatible?
From: BURT on 6 Feb 2010 17:04
On Feb 6, 12:06 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Feb 6, 1:57 pm, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "Sanny" <softtank...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:a1c75804-b3d2-4784-84f8-c91feea8fba5(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com.... > > > > Until now I used to agree that Speed of light is constant = "C" As it > > > has been seen by experiments. > > > That is in a perfect vacuum. > > > Light can be slowed to almost a stop. > > > As for the rest of your post, remember the relativistic > > properties of anything aproaching C. That's why the > > closing speed of 2 photons in a vacuum is still C. > > Oh great! Now the gang's all here! With HVAC showing up along with > Sanny, "Mitch Raemsch" (winner of two Nobel prizes) and the rest we > now have all the kooks in one spot ready to come to an understanding > of... nothing! > > Sorry guys, light is NOT an electromagnetic wave. Attempting to use > that model as some ultimate explanation of the assumptions of SR is > only chasing your own tail. Fun, but no results. > > Sanny IS asking the right question however: If light were a wave in a > medium, then HOW can we explain all the quantum effects observed in > modern physics? In other words how can both assumptions somehow be > compatible? Is not the shortest distance what motion path that gravity makes for you? Ellsspes have to be shortest paths for minimum action. Motion parabolas in gravity are also shortest paths in geometry that are not orbitals. Mitch Raemsch |